Hey Canada

[Slowsis]

We have a multi-party representative system. The country is broken into 307 ridings, and a candidate from each party runs in each. Whoever wins the most ridings is considered to have won, and that parties leader gets to be Prime Minister. Those who win their seats are Members of Parliment, and these MP's each have a vote on any bill which is put forward in the House of commons. This means unless one party gets more than half of the seats, it can be very difficult to pass legislation. The Conservative government has this problem now, and for them to make any bill law, they will need to build a consensus with one of the other parties. This acts nicely as a check on their power, as any extreme new ideas they put forward will be mediated by the need to garner votes from other parties.

[junkyardjew]

What kind of election system do you guys have? Do you have a preferential system?

I believe what he was asking is whether we have proportional representation. And the answer is sadly, no. Unlike the australian system (and correct me if I'm wrong here) where the percentage of the popular vote a party gets determines how many seats they've won, Canada has what we call "first past the post". In every riding, whichever party gets the most votes, that party gets the seat.

So the Liberal party actually got more than half the popular vote, but only 103 out of 307 ridings. The New Democrats got about 22% of the popular vote, but only 7% of the seats, and the Green party got almost 5% of the vote, and no seats at all.

So of course, the parties that this disadvantages like the NDP have proportional representation as a large part of their platform, and the people who get into power with less than half the popular votes *cough*theconservatives*cough* do everything they can to prevent electoral reform.

[Colin]

It irks me that voting systems the world over are so monumentally stupid. The construction of voting systems is a relatively simple game theory problem (ie accessible to laypeople) and is socially important enough that it should be taught in public schools. The unfortunate truth is that nobody in power could ever benefit from public education on this issue - no rational winner would want to change the rules of the game.

[Jeremy]

I'm a big fan of Australia's voting system and also the Irish voting system (which my state - Tasmania - stole and now uses for our state elections).

Thanks for the information.

I don't know if my question really got answered regarding preferential systems.

When you vote - do you vote for one person or do you order the ballot from 1st to last - or do you do something different?

In Australia we vote for all the candiates. The first preferences are all tallied up and then the person who comes last is cut out. All their votes then go to the second preference and are added to the remaining candidates. This continues until only two people remain and the person with the most votes wins.

What this means is that for example at the last federal election we had 4 candidates to vote for - A hard line religious guy (who lived 2 houses down from my house and had a daughter I went to school with), a conservative, a centre left, and a greens candidate.

I voted 1. green, 2. centre left, 3. conservative and 4. religious.
This meant that if the greens weren't elected (and there was very little chance of that happening) then my vote would be counted as going to the centre left party (labor) instead. The Centre left and the conservative parties being the two major parties this meant that my vote went to the party that I wanted it to go to with the biggest chance of winning.

In our upper house elections this becomes much more important as there were something like 18 candidates to vote for and the top 6 all get elected. This means that your vote will end up going to one of the top 7 people. Also if your vote goes to somebody in the upperhouse who gets more than 1/6th of the vote then it also gets passed on to whoever the person who you chose to vote for wants it to go to. This means that there is no chance of your vote being "wasted" and it encourages people to vote for whoever they want to win - rather than the party they think has the best chance of beating the party they don't want to win. Hence in the upper house - of the 6 candidates that actually got elected - I voted 1. for the greens candidate who won and then all the socialist and left wing independant parties, then the people who I didn't know, then the centre left party, then the conservative party and finally the religious parties (I'm a very strong believier in secularity). In the end the greens candidate only just scraped in as the 6th candidate so my vote would have gone to her.

The only downside that I see of this system is that not everybody understands it so some people vote for the two major parties (or one of them usually) because they don't want the other to win. However if we changed to a non preferential system those people would vote the same way so nothing is lost.

[Colin]

One vote per ballot. I know, it's idiotic and embarrassing.

My own district has had the same Conservative representative for as long as I've been politically aware. Every election, he gets about 40% of the pop vote, while the other sixty is divided, usually about equally, between the Liberal and NDP candidate. If only one of those candidates were to run, she would almost certainly win. As it stands, it's the 50-50 split among those who want the Conservative party out of power that keeps them in power.

[HighDemonslayer]

Newf wrote:
--------------
5 - moving towards privatization of health care - This is a dicey one for me, since it's true that our health care is in shambles and needs major work. For example, I twisted my ankle 6 months ago and have yet to receive a satisfactory diagnosis of the injury. I intend to see an orthopedist soon, but I can expect to wait at least a couple of months to have an ultrasound done on the joint, and at least a year for an MRI if they even let me on the list.

Despite the potential benefits, many Canadians (myself included) feel that private health care is contrary to a pretty strongly held belief in total equality when it comes to medical needs.
----------------

This one bugged me , It sounds like you have to wait extra long, and then you'll have wait even years longer for an MRI.

Does your "strongly held belief in total equality", mean that everyone should have equally crappy medical care? Should the system stay like it is, so others have to suffer at least as long as you have?

Is is fair that you suffer the same as a poor person who couldn't pay for care if he had to?

Cuz the rich folks can and will just go to the U.S. for good care. They don't have to wait.

Maybe you need a law to prohibit citizens from paying for care in the U.S. Force them to wait in line until they die. That would be more fair.-n

[HighDemonslayer]

I bet you could get a free diagnosis and maybe an MRI , to boot, here in the United States, cuz hospitals have to treat you for an emergency condition.
You just have to make it "appear" like an emergency condition, fake some shock-like symptoms, or something. Of course, somebody could be waiting behind you with a serious condition.





-n

[footbinc]

Alberta is not just insanely rich, we are super duper ridicuslously insanely rich. Its go time here. As much as i disdain both Harper and MArtin and especially Layton, its good to see the east lose one for a change

Go Private Health Care. We live in a capitalist society. Should I not have the right as a doctor to earn what people will pay if I wnat to open my own clinic? (which BTW, the first completely private clinic here in AB, just opened today!!!)

Im thinking for next election, im running as the bloc q guy in my riding, try to get them enough seats, then we will seperate quebec Its that sort of innovative thinking that this country needs

Sorry, im bored at the office and that sort of made me laugh to myself...

cheers

Ben